> >> You disagree? What are your thoughts on fixing the problem? > > I'm not sure that we agree on the dimensions of the problem. > > on the question of ipv6 is broken: > > * You're going to have to cope with what you have and can squeeze out of > vendors in the near term. implmentors don't change that fast. > * People have to show up with the problem statement and stick around to do > the work > * the outcomes are not always pretty. >
I don't think that has anything to do with the problem Bill is trying to address. While it is the topic that started this thread, the problem that I think Bill is trying to address and which I agree needs to be addressed is that IETF standards are developed with what has become increasingly obvious as insufficient operator input. Yes, operators are partially to blame in that decisions are made by those that show up and operators have a hard time showing up to the IETF process for a variety of reasons that are mostly related to the realities of running day to day operations and not realy something the IETF can easily address. However, part of the problem also relates to ways in which the IETF is particularly difficult for operators to credibly participate. (the amount of ego and religion in some of the working groups, the need for a thick skin if you want to make a statement that goes counter to the current dogma, the time-consuming nature of meaningful participation, etc.). I don't pretend to have answers to all of these problems, but, I think there first needs to be recognition and consensus that the lack of operator input into the IETF is becoming increasingly problematic and is impacting the ability to deploy what is developed by the IETF. Owen
